It's a never ending list and rapidly expanding as fast as our now virtually UNLIMITED unconstitutional BIG government is rapidly expanding, regardless of party in power.

Think about the thousands of areas where our federal government has granted itself powers to control and regulate, then compare them to the very short list of enumerated powers:

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

See also:

AMENDMENT IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Mnehring is right about the federal government having the Constitutional right to get involved in marriage issues. Contracts are involved and a marriage or divorce in one state probably has to be honored in all states unless the Constitution is amended to provide for an exception.

Anyone who knows me knows I oppose homosexual marriage, and this probably has to be handled at the federal level because even one state allowing homosexual marriage can probably force every other state to accept it, under longstanding precedents.

The contracts clause is in Article I, Section 10, which reads as follows: “No State shall ... pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts...”

The alternative to considering marriage to be a contractual obligation covered by this clause would be chaos with people not knowing if their marriage performed in one state would be valid in another state to which they might move. Less than half a century ago, this became an issue when some more conservative states didn't want to recognize the “no fault divorce” granted by states with looser laws. The stricter states were forced to recognize divorces granted in more permissive states. Also, states which prohibited interracial marriages were first forced to recognize interracial marriages performed in other states and then forced to perform interracial marriages themselves.

This is not a new issue — there are multiple reasons why Utah could not be allowed to enter the Union before it outlawed polygamy, one of them being that every other state probably would have been forced to recognize polygamous marriages in Utah. Even apart from that extreme case, this came up in the early 1800s with questions about the legitimacy of marriages to first cousins or states having to decide whether to allow remarriage of people who had been divorced under the laws of a different jurisdiction where divorces were granted on grounds that other states refused to accept.

Personally I can see some wisdom in letting this get handled as a states’ rights issue, but I see no way to do so because of the contracts clause and court precedents relating to marriage that go back long before modern judicial activism. Much will depend on what the Supreme Court does, but I'm afraid this is probably going to end up being an “all or nothing” issue with homosexual marriage allowed in all states or no states.

but I'm afraid this is probably going to end up being an all or nothing issue with homosexual marriage allowed in all states or no states.

I'm not advocating this, but I've read about some Conservatives and Libertarians pushing for a third way which goes down the privacy path. Basically, it would forbid the government from asking for or tracking anyone's sex or sexual orientation. It basically tells the government it is none of your business. Thus, gay marriage or whatever wouldn't be expressly forbidden because the government could not ask either party what their sex is, it would be a blind contract between two individuals.

It also sounds like it would be a complete cluster the day after it is implemented when you then put into the mix religious ceremonies and people trying to carry forward that 'blind' rule to religious institutions as well.

It seems, the definition that has crossed almost all cultural, religious, and national lines for thousands upon thousands of years is the easiest to manage and maintain. You can't just go say a foot is 13 inches any more than one can change the definition of fundamental legal terms without a butt load (no pun intended) of unintended consequences.

I would bet that we see Consitutional reforms take hold in our lifetimes... one way or the other... it will happen.

My bet is on "other". The ruling class establishment has effectively imposed a totalitarian tyranny on the people, and left them no recourse but rebellion.

I don't expect an armed uprising anytime soon, but I think we'll start seeing widespread acts of civil disobedience and resistance occurring over the next four years. I mean, truly, what else are we to do? Every one of our established institutions is broken.

51
posted on 05/03/2012 6:40:56 PM PDT
by Windflier
(To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)

50 posted on Thu May 03 2012 20:34:58 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by Windflier: “With the sincerest of apologies to my revered ancestors, I'd have to anglicize that name, if it were mine.”

Understood, but he's in West Michigan. Dutch names around those parts don't sound strange to Michigander ears. If you want really unspellable examples of Dutch names, think things like Rensselaer Broekhuizen or Kees van der Staaij.

Names like that actually get people extra votes from many conservatives. If the choices are Fred Upton or Jack Hoogendyk, a significant percentage of people in the Republican primary will vote for Hoogendyk merely because of his name.

The reason why is an ethnic version of “branding.” Even among non-Dutch people in communities with a significant Dutch Reformed presence, the presumption is that if you're Dutch, unless proven otherwise, you're probably some sort of fairly conservative Christian even if you're not Dutch Reformed, you're very frugal in your personal and business finances, and you're right-of-center politically. Those are good things for a Republican to be identified with in that area — lots of people who know nothing else about you will like you just because of your name.

Of course, there are also negatives to being Dutch. The perception is that you're religiously narrowminded, are part of a pretty ethnocentric group, and are so strict about money that you pinch pennies until they scream for mercy. However, the people who don't like those things probably wouldn't have voted for a strongly conservative Republican anyway.

To be clear, I'm writing as a Grand Rapids native and Calvin graduate who doesn't have a drop of Dutch blood but is a right-wing Calvinist and therefore even stricter than the Dutch stereotypes of such things. I was one of the very few non-Dutch people attending Calvin back when I was a student, and I routinely had people do double-takes when they saw a rare non-Dutch name that didn't have distinctive Dutch suffixes or prefixes like VanderSomething or DeSomething or Somethingstra or Somethingsma or Somethinga.

...he's in West Michigan. Dutch names around those parts don't sound strange to Michigander ears. Names like that actually get people extra votes from many conservatives.

Hmm....that hadn't even occurred to me. I'm from the Southwest, where those kinds of names aren't real common. As a kid in SoCal, the most unusual Nordic name I remember, was Van de Kamp (are the Dutch considered Nordic, or is Lowlander preferred?).

54
posted on 05/03/2012 7:45:37 PM PDT
by Windflier
(To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)

@ Windflier: The Dutch would not consider themselves Nordic at all — on the contrary, the regions now known as the Netherlands were among the victims of the Viking invasions.

Historically, the Dutch once had several different ethnic backgrounds of Germanic origin, but in the modern era until recent times have been fairly homogeneous ethnically despite provincial differences, with the significant exception being Friesland which even today retains its own linguistic identity.

Dutch immigrants in North America who wanted to preserve their ethnic, cultural and religious heritage tended to cluster in immigrant ethnic communities which until the current generation remained strongly conservative. That is breaking up theologically due to serious liberal inroads in the Reformed Church in America and Christian Reformed Church, but it will take another generation to fall apart sociologically and politically.

Think Northwest Iowa, the Pella region of central Iowa, West Michigan, and certain parts of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia which have become overwhelmingly Dutch, along with smaller immigrant communities that became subcultures in areas were the Dutch were a small minority.

This is politically significant not just regionally but nationally because of the role of the Dutch Reformed in Iowa. Bob Vander Plaats was a key factor in mobilizing Iowa evangelicals for Rick Santorum, which propelled him into the national spotlight. Very similar things happened four years ago with Mike Huckabee. We can curse or praise that, but it is impossible to deny the role of the Dutch in Iowa in jumpstarting two consecutive conservative Christian candidates.

The Founders had it right and those who believe in and fight for limited government have it right. Obama is a flaming useful idiot for full blown Marxism and cannot possibly survive an impeachment fight once it starts. A vote for Romney is giving one’s consent for continuing big government and the slide into socialism, but from the GOP side which will not be resisted by our elected representatives. Either of them end up in the same place.

It would be far more effective to shake the broken system apart. Take advantage of where the leftist have broken the Constitutional system’s structure to shake it apart.

As simplistic as that sounds its really is a matter of taking advantage of the compromised system.

There are as many ways to do that as there are holes in the federal logic, and ultimately it all boils down to 3 complimentary objectives:

1: Use the abusive power to make the left as unhappy with Washington as we are, so that they too desire either a separation or revolution.(this is not so hard, headed there already)

2: Uses the abuses to compromises the government’s ability to sustain itself. Push it into a position where it is bordering on financial collapse.(this is even easier to do, its simply a matter of acceleration what it naturally wants to do.)

3: Increase the disfranchisement, by continuing to preach about the origins & nature of our rights(from God not State, Consist of Freedom not Services). Then point out the inevitable consequences of their actions, our loss of freedom, and the population being made depended upon the exploitation of others.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.